Displaying items by tag: Supreme CourtThe National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.https://ncsfreedom.org
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 18:56:14 +0000en-gbJustices Reject Photographer's Appealhttps://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/1-justices-reject-photographers-appeal.html
https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/1-justices-reject-photographers-appeal.html The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal yesterday from a New York photographer who said that a federal decency law violated her First Amendment rights to post explicit pictures of sadomasochism and bondage on the Web, The Associated Press reported. The justices affirmed a decision by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which made it a crime to post obscene materials on the Internet. The appeal was brought by Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book "Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism," and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Supreme Court

Sadomasochism

Decency Act

]]>Barbara Nitke CaseThu, 23 Mar 2006 20:00:00 +0000Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court's Ruling in Nitke Appeal Without Hearing Oral Argumentshttps://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/6-supreme-court-affirms-lower-courts-ruling-in-nitke-appeal-without-hearing-oral-arguments.html
https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/6-supreme-court-affirms-lower-courts-ruling-in-nitke-appeal-without-hearing-oral-arguments.htmlWASHINGTON, DC - The Supreme Court today denied an appeal by photographer Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) in the case of Nitke v. Gonzalez. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act on the grounds that the obscenity provision of the CDA is overbroad. Last year, a three-judge panel in New York's Southern District had dismissed Nitke's lawsuit, ruling that there was "insufficient evidence" to show that the CDA was overbroad. In affirming that ruling today, the Supreme Court did not hear oral arguments in the case, instead issuing a four-word decision which reads simply: "The Judgment is Affirmed." According to comments posted by attorney Alan R. Levy to his Live Journal blog, since the case had been decided by a three-judge panel, Nitke and the NCSF had an "appeal of right to the U.S. Supreme court," which meant that the court could not "deny certiorari and had to take the case." Levy is a senior associate with the law firm of Lester, Schwab, Katz and Dwyer in New York, and a member of the NCSF. "Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision consisted of four words: 'The Judgment is Affirmed'," Levy wrote. "Hence, it…

Nightclub

Supreme Court

]]>Barbara Nitke CaseTue, 21 Mar 2006 20:00:00 +0000Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA)https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/7-supreme-court-decision-in-the-communications-decency-act-cda.html
https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/7-supreme-court-decision-in-the-communications-decency-act-cda.html March 20, 2006 - Washington D.C. Today the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal District Court's decision in Barbara Nitke and NCSF v. Alberto Gonzales, the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, #01 CIV 11476 (RMB). The Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court's decision without hearing oral arguments, sending a clear signal that the court will not protect free speech rights when it comes to sexually explicit materials. The NCSF and Nitke lawsuit was successful in weakening the Miller standard of judging obscenity: the District Court for the Southern District of NY made a factual finding that the SLAPS prong of Miller does not provide protection against prosecution as it was intended to do. The Miller decision (1973) stated that materials were constitutionally protected if the work, taken as a whole, has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." However the District court accepted evidence from NCSF and Nitke that prosecutors and juries in more restrictive communities are less likely to extend protection to artistic and literary materials that are outside the mainstream of traditional sexuality. "We have proven that Miller does not work," says Susan Wright, Spokesperson for NCSF. "But the Supreme Court has declined…

CDA

Legal

Supreme Court

Nitke

]]>Barbara Nitke CaseSun, 19 Mar 2006 20:00:00 +0000Justices Pass on Internet Obscenity Casehttps://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/8-justices-pass-on-internet-obscenity-case.html
https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/8-justices-pass-on-internet-obscenity-case.htmlMarch 20,2006 | WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal on Monday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web. Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the 1996 law which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children. The court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently. Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts. The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book "Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism," and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke's lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene. Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, "many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor…

Legal

Supreme Court

]]>Barbara Nitke CaseSun, 19 Mar 2006 20:00:00 +0000NCSF and Barbara Nitke File Amicus Brief in "United States vs. Extreme Associates"https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/48-ncsf-and-barbara-nitke-file-amicus-brief-in-united-states-vs-extreme-associates.html
https://ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/48-ncsf-and-barbara-nitke-file-amicus-brief-in-united-states-vs-extreme-associates.htmlMay 26, 2005 - New York, NY - The obscenity case against Extreme Associates was dismissed by a Federal judge in Pittsburgh, PA, in January, 2005. But the battle isn't over yet: U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. NCSF and Barbara Nitke have joined the fight challenging the constitutionality of obscenity laws by filing an Amicus Brief in the appeal. In his historic decision on Extreme Associates, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster ruled that obscenity laws are unconstitutional as applied to this prosecution based on the Supreme Court decision "Lawrence v. Texas" which abolished sodomy laws. "Lawrence v. Texas" said in effect that the government can no longer use "public morality" as a rationale for suppressing what adults may legally do in private. The NCSF and Nitke Amicus Brief supports Judge Lancaster's opinion and makes the following points: The government cannot pick and choose which subjects of speech it wants to regulate and limit. Under this argument, the government should not be allowed to restrict SM pornography more strictly than vanilla pornography. Obscenity is judged by "local community standards" which cannot be applied on the internet because…